The COVID-19 pandemic induces the worst economic downturn since the Second World War, requiring governments to design large-scale recovery plans to overcome this crisis. This paper quantitatively assesses the potential of government investments in eco-friendly construction projects to boost the economy and simultaneously realise environmental gains through reduced energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis uses a Computable General Equilibrium model that examines the macroeconomic impact of the COVID-19 crisis in a small open economy (Belgium). Subsequently, the impact of the proposed policy is assessed through comparative analysis for macroeconomic parameters as well as CO2 equivalent emissions for four scenarios. Our findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 pandemic damages economies considerably, however, the reduction in emissions is less than proportionate. Still, well-designed https://www.selleckchem.com/products/CI-1040-(PD184352).html can reverse this trend, achieving both economic growth and a disproportionally large decrease in emissions. Moreover, the positive effect of such a decoupling policy on GDP is even stronger during the pandemic than compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. This is the result of a targeted, investment-induced green transition towards low energy-intensive economic activities. Finally, this paper describes how the net effect on the government budget is positive through the indirect gains of the economic uptake.COVID-19 is currently having major short run effects with possible serious long run implications for the environment and the management of natural resources in Latin America. We discuss the possible effects of the pandemic on air pollution, deforestation and other relevant environmental dimensions across the region. With contributions from environmental economists from eight countries, we give an overview of the initial and expected environmental effects of this health crisis. We discuss potential effects on environmental regulations, possible policy interventions, and an agenda for future research for those interested in the design and evaluation of environmental policies relevant for the Latin American context.This paper investigates if narratives varying the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic affects pro-wildlife conservation outcomes. In a pre-registered online experiment (N?=?1081), we randomly allocated subjects to either a control group or to one of three narrative treatment groups, each presenting a different likely cause of the COVID-19 outbreak an animal cause; an animal and human cause (AHC); and an animal, human or lab cause. We found that the AHC narrative elicited significantly greater pro-conservation policy support, especially for bans in the commercial trade of wildlife, when compared to the control group. Possible mechanisms driving this effect are that AHC narratives were less familiar, elicited higher mental and emotional engagement, and induced feelings that firms and governments are responsible for mitigating wildlife extinction.As our behavioral patterns change due to the COVID-19 crisis, our impact on nature and the environment changes too. Pollution levels are showing significant reductions. People are more aware of the importance of access to local green and blue spaces. By analyzing online search behavior in twenty European countries, we investigate how public awareness of nature and the environment has evolved during the COVID-19 crisis. We find that the crisis goes hand in hand with a positive shift in public awareness of nature-related topics, but that awareness of environmental topics remains unaffected. While the decreasing pollution levels and media attention may reduce the overall sense of urgency to tackle pollution problems, the increased experience with local natural resources may strengthen public support for a recovery program that puts the transition towards a more sustainable economic system centrally.This short paper provides a modeling framework for unifying the economy, climate change and the outbreak of infectious diseases such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic. #link# We stress that continuous growth of consumption activities, capital accumulation and climate change could increase the potential of the epidemic, its contact number or the probability of its arrival. This framework of analysis allows us to think of infectious disease policies in two stages. In the short run, containment policies like social distancing could help to stop the epidemic. In the medium and the long run, economic policies could help to reduce the potential of the epidemic or the probability of its emergence.In this article, we present data from the monthly Pandemic Food and Stigma Survey (PFSS), a nationwide representative sample of adults in the United States designed to identify how the pandemic is affecting concerns about food and the environment. Two surveys were conducted in May and June 2020. Our analysis suggests that the public's concern about contracting COVID-19 has been high; however, infection with COVID-19 was not the only concern. A majority of respondents remained strongly concerned about environmental issues, such as climate change, while responses to sudden relaxations of environmental and food safety policies varied. We analyze the PFSS data to identify factors associated with concerns about pandemic and environmental regulatory changes. In general, we find that people whose food security has been threatened by COVID-19 remain concerned about relaxation of environmental regulations, and those most inclined to take steps to reduce spread of the virus, such as wearing masks and social distancing, are more concerned about relaxed regulations than those less willing to take mitigating actions.Most states have implemented quite strict measures designed to slow down the spread of the coronavirus among their populations. For most sectors, these measures have resulted in a significant reduction of economic activity, output, and hence also output-related emissions. Commitment to these measures, apparently regardless of the economic costs involved, is considered by some people to be a blueprint for the commitment required to mitigate climate change and to achieve the Paris climate targets. However, when it comes to devising an efficient climate policy, the differences between the two crises-cororonavirus and climate change-need to be taken more seriously than the similarities. Alarming have been the various calls to put a quick end to corona prevention measures and the restrictions they place on public and economic activity, indicative as they are of the priority accorded to high discount rates and the absence of precautionary thinking among policy-makers. Both the differences between the two crises themselves and the similarities in the reluctance to focus on achieving (more) long-term benefits emphasize once again the need for long-term commitment to climate policies in line with agreed targets.